The overwhelming concern of this project to ask and answer the metaphysical question through the question of human subjectivity, which whatever else it may be, can be characterized as life with understanding. This entails an account not only of a proper conception of the metaphysical enterprise, but also of the necessary features entailed in being a human subject. This dissertation will argue not only that human subjectivity has certain necessary, normative conditions, but also that these universal conditions of subjectivity as such include the universal conditions of reality as such—including, finally, a divine reality. I will pursue this discussion with the help of a few primary interlocutors: Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Karl-Otto Apel (1922–), Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000). The neoclassical account, as formulated by Whitehead and Hartshorne, has systematically offered an alternative to Kant's conception of subjectivity and metaphysics as well as to the twentieth century's more "postmetaphysical" orientation. This latter development, which I will argue is at best an unnecessary and at worst a detrimental result of some important insights of the linguistic turn and hermeneutic turns, is in parts both criticized and upheld by Apel, who is this project's primary dialogue partner. Despite my immense appreciation for Apel's achievements, I will also offer some criticisms of what I take to be the central incoherencies of an otherwise commendable project. Ultimately, I will argue that neoclassical metaphysics provides a viable, alternative account of both subjectivity and metaphysics that not only fails to succumb to Kant's and Apel's due criticisms of inadequate, previous formulations thereof, but also resolves the difficulties evident in Apel's own project.